Bill proposed in Oregon would make cigarettes prescription-only drugs

Source: KPTV

If you're a regular smoker, you may want to keep an eye on a new bill in the Oregon Legislature.

Rep. Mitch Greenlick, from Portland, is sponsoring a bill that makes cigarettes a Schedule III controlled substance, meaning it would be illegal to possess or distribute cigarettes without a doctor's prescription.

Under the proposal, offenders would face maximum punishments of one year in prison, a $6,250 fine or both.

Other drugs and substances that are considered Schedule III controlled substances are ketamine, lysergic acid and anabolic steroids.

1. Nicotine is more addictive than cocaine and heroin. nt

73. Which will make this more difficult to enforce than pot laws, to be sure, but good idea anyway

because it will take tobacco out of the marketplace and into a regulated place where addictive, harmful drugs belong.

But, this is not as important as protecting children (and all citizens) from second-hand smoke. Children especially need their health rights protected from smoking parents because they are trapped in the environment of their care providers.
How about adding a punishment for exposing a child or other person without self-determination to tobacco smoke?

We need a more evolved perspective on the health consequences of all our actions, especially pollution harming health.
This level of recognition of the harm of tobacco needs to extend to the 575,000 hazardous chemicals in the American workplace.

2. They are getting a little carried away.Unless, it's leading to tobacco equality.Let's deal w/the NRA

right now. No diversions. Get this assault weapons ban, magazine ban, insurance required going. There are so many other more important things the taxpayers would rather be paying for the time for. Wake up Senator. Get with the program. What doctor will prescribe cigarettes. They are deadly...unlike marijuana, especially when vaporized.

51. Yes.

74. Ad hominem is not cool. Please supply some photos of yourself so we can comment on you too

You know, to help you with your empathy skills

(Please wait. You cannot send a new alert until the alert you just sent a moment ago is resolved. You will receive a notification by DU Mail when jurors finish voting on your previous alert (probably within the next 15 minutes), and you may send a new alert at that time.) I couldn't wait!

16. There's pseudoephedrine in Soma? Who knew? n/t

22. Um, I don't think I implied that.

I gave two examples of states making a legend drug controlled even though the feds do not consider them controlled substances.

In the title I mentioned psuedoephedrine and Soma in the body, but the relationship between the sentences is that they are both examples of drugs that states have more stringent controls on than the feds.

Perhaps next time I can put an "also" or "too" in order to be more clear?

75. Unless, of course, you were serving time for your offenses.

10. I say bravo.

I've never smoked...I HATE the stench of cigarette smoke...I HATE having to walk through a cloud
of smoke, even on a sidewalk in front of a building...I HATE the stench on people's breath and on their clothing, not
to mention stepping foot in the home of a smoker (which I won't).

You may, as a smoker want to kill yourself but you have no right to kill me with your "leftover" smoke (as well as
pollute my water with your nasty tossed away butts...AND...you have no right to potentially burn down my "home", be
it an apartment or condo.)

Whether they can or cannot enact this, I love it and say press forward. Maybe someday it can become Federal law.

12. It's good for authoritarians to self-identify. Thank you.

45. so, if someone has an opposing opinion to smokers, they are full of shit?

I LOATHE SMOKING! I WISH IT WOULD DIE! But then seven members of my family died of cancer from smoking right in front of my eyes and that matters to me. It is the basis of my HATRED for smoking. That and the fact that I grew up when people smoked in the super marker and everywhere else. I was a minority then, ignored and ridiculed for not smoking and asking people to stop around me. Now the smokers who have had their way for FIVE HUNDRED FUCKING YEARS have become the minority and are whining?! Really?!

People have the right to support this bill and say so without attack. People have the right to express their hatred of smoking. Don't agree but don't kick them around. Some of us have a fucking good reason to hate smoking. I don't have grandparents, a father, uncles and cousins because of this FILTHY disgusting killer habit. I earned my right to feel this way and I have the right to speak it without attack. Don't agree with me if that makes you happy. Block me. But don't tell me I can't speak out and don't call me a fucking nazi.

No matter what side of this argument you are on, if you smoke you are an addict.

18. Oh, lighten up Soapie.

That said, I wish cigarettes were less available. I am an ex smoker who smokes around people who smoke. I'm fine by myself, I have an ecig that does me just fine, until I see (or smell) someone else smoking.

I wish I had more willpower. I do for everything else! What I eat, exercise, everything - but nicotine has me by the boobs.

19. I would say bravo to banning soda and any other carbonated beverage.

I've never like the taste of soda or carbonated beverages...I HATE the stench of flatulence that comes from drinking carbonated beverages...I HATE having to walk through a cloud of carbonated flatulence even on a sidewalk in front of a building...I HATE the stench of a soda burp on people's breath and their clothing when they pass gas, not to mention stepping foot in the home of a soda drinker (which I won't).

You may, as a carbonated beverage drinker want to kill yourself with the toxins they put in that crap but you have no right to annoy me with your flatulence (as well as pollute my water with the nasty chemicals in that stuff...AND...you have no right to stink up my "home", be it an apartment or condo.)

Whether they can or cannot enact something like that, I love it and say press forward. Maybe someday it can become Federal law.

24. And meat. And frying oil.

Ugh. Those meat eaters and fried food eaters have no right to pollute our environment with all of that oil smoke and farm runoff. That stuff should all be banned too. And the horrible stench from my neighbor bbq'ing...that should be illegal.

79. I fought for years for a womans right to an abortion because it's HER body - not mine! Some

woman have died during abortions. There are risks. Smokers don't always get cancer - its a risk. If a woman has the right to do with her body as she see's fit - Why can't a smoker? Many of us believe we should have the right to die if our quality of life is affected, because it's OUR body - Why can't a smoker have the right to their own body? I see how this works.

We have hundreds of thousands of laws. We don't need new ones to dictate what someone does on their own property with their own body. I don't smoke anymore but I'm getting sick of intrusive people basing laws on what another person does with their own body. Maybe we should ban all alcoholic beverages because someone might drink and drive and kill themselves or someone else.

84. Exactly!

109. Except for the 55000 a year who didn't choose to smoke, but died from others' choices.

And Christ another one parrotting that absurdly false drink-driving "analogy". Let's remind ourselves of the fallacies here.

Drinking without driving is easy and common. Smoking without exhaling? Not so much on either front.

67% of adults drink. Even if you believe laughable MADD propaganda that includes 50% who were never tested for BAC, passengers, pedestrians and people with error-detection levels, let alone actually assess blame on the "drunk" "driver", there are about 17000 alcohol-related fatalities in the US a year. 70% are the driver themselves.

21% smoke, and a rather more reputable CDC assigned the 55,000 NON smokers (plus 400k or so smokers)

So 3 times as many people drink, yet they kill a third as many people. only a third of whom are not those choosing to drive drunk. So three times as many kill a ninth as many innocent victims, and only do that when they choose to do something else as well as drink, unlike smokers who must exhale poison by necessity.

110. The point is that people do choose to get drunk and drive. This kills people. my uncle didn't

drink yet he was killed by a drunk driver. He didn't get a choice. It's the same thing. I'm not asking that they tax or regulate alcohol like they've done smoking. You don't think emissions from cars and poisons from pesticides don't cause more cancer than second hand smoke?

I don't use pesticides for killing weeds. Maybe I should advocate more taxes and regulations on my neighbors who do since their decision to use the stuff spreads their poison to my garden and my air. It also stinks.

I would never actually do those things because i don't believe in taxing and regulating things other people use or enjoy, based on the fact I don't like it. But there are a lot of you who do.

97. Remind me to invite myself over to your house

23. Oh for fucks sake

Do you also hate breathing exhaust from cars? Smokers are gonna smoke and your bitching about it won't stop them. You really support putting people in prison for smoking cigarettes? Do you have any friends or loved ones who smoke? Do they deserve to be in prison because of their addiction?

I understand putting limitations on where people can smoke, but advocating that smokers be put in prison is asinine.

76. Funny...

13. Rumor has it they're going to try to go after E-cigs as well.

As a heavy 26 year former smoker thats previously tried every way he can to quit and failed misreably, and has now been off analogues successfully for close to a month with none of the problems that happened with the other methods, that pisses me off.

And I can breath and sleep better, and food tastes really good again, thanks to E-ciggs. They work folks.

32. But if you are an addict, you shouldn't have any problem getting a prescription.

This bill would make it more difficult for kids to get a hold of cigarettes and become addicted. I doubt that it will pass, but I don't think it will stop addicts from satisfying their addictions. It will insure that people who smoke have to see doctors regularly. That's a good thing.

37. No doctor in his right mind would give a prescription.

His malpractice insurance would go to the moon. He would be sued and accused of prescribing something which he knew was going to hurt or kill his patients. As far as the kids go keeping mj illegal really has worked keeping it out of their hands. Right.

88. If cigarettes are known "to hurt or kill," why are they legal at all?

Cars are known to hurt and kill, but you have to get a license to drive them plus a registration for the car.

Of course, doctors would prescribe this medication. Doctors prescribe things they know can hurt or kill their patients all the time including addictive substances. The dose makes the poison. That's precisely why a doctor should be involved.

89. No, we have been told NO smoking level is safe.

Now I don't believe that but that is what the Cancer Society and the Surgeon General has said. So the dose makes the poison defense would go down in flames. As far as why it is legal it is because it makes money for all levels of government. Many government agencies would go broke if people stopped smoking tomorrow.

14. I applaud the effort to raise awareness of how harmful the substances in cigarettes are....

but I don't want them to be RX-material only. I do want good, effective health education and public awareness campaigns that drive home the dangers and long-term effects of smoking not only on the smoker but those around them.

My mother was in nurses training during WWII. She began to gain weight as the diet consisted overwhelmingly of starches (potatoes, rice, etc.) and few healthy vegetables, fruits and lean protein. She went to her doctor and he recommended she START SMOKING to help with her weight.

She became a chain smoker. I suffered the years of my childhood and adolescence with a house, car, clothes and my person smelling of cigarettes. Every couple of years we would wash the walls of the house and you would see the yellow nicotine run down the walls.

Once I got out on my own and she came to visit I kindly told her she would not be able to smoke in my apartment but must step outside. The rest of the family thought I was a bit harsh but I certainly did not. She was in my home (I recall the old statement - "as long as you are in my house you will follow my rules"). Neither myself nor my roommate smoked. We didn't want our furniture, walls, clothing and persons permeated with smoke. I was respectful but firm.

Interesting I worked for Northwest Airlines when they were the first airline to ban smoking on domestic flights (international took much longer since they served the Asian market which had many many smokers). We received calls from passengers telling us we would go out of business, that they would never fly us again, etc. Of course that is now the policy of almost all world airlines of any significance. Something else I found interesting was the policy raised concerns among the line maintenance staff. They had for years used visual evidence of nicotine on the fuselage as an indication of a possible problem with a rivet or other structural element. They had literally looked for the yellow stains on the outside of the airplane to find structural cracks. etc. Now of course they use x-rays and other methods but it was ironic.

I don't mind smokers as long as they are courteous. My biggest problem is not so much with smokers that smoke where they shouldn't. There are always a few times when you smell the smoke as you enter your office building, etc. because someone is too close to the door or you can smell it on the clothing of someone in the elevator. My biggest issues are the public health costs and the arrogance of smokers that continue to flick their ashes everywhere and dump not only their cigarette butts on streets, sidewalks, yards, etc. but even their lighters and cigarette packages. For those offenses I want the immediate death penalty (sarcasm). But seriously it is a real problem where I live.

50. Thanks, but I don't smoke, never have.

But I do believe in freedom and tolerance --you know liberal values -- or maybe you don't know about those. BTW I live in a large college city and smokers may be in the minority someplaces but not here.

57. oh for god sakes. Because I have real reasons for hating cigarettes I am now not a

liberal and hate freedom and tolerance. JEZUS.

So what? I suppose you don't have a problem with meth either but it kills too. I have said my point like anyone else on this list some of which made fun of the physical body of the man proposing this. Tolerance anyone? You don't have to agree but to attack my cred as a liberal for having a differing opinion than you is fucking sad. You don't know my life. Let me give you just some of the highlights:

Liberal, not a progressive. Liberal.
OSPIRG from the beginning
State secretary of my union, local president, vice president and secretary of my union local for eleven years
member of a state labor council for eleven years
rights person of my union for 25 years
Democrat with a capital D all my damned life from a family who were dems or the equivalent since Jefferson
Remembers my grandfather when he was blackballed trying to organize railroad unions. Remembered him being a socialist activist all his life
Remembers when our entire household was repossessed because my dad wouldn't cross a picket line. Remember when I didn't either.
Remembers when dems had balls
Remembers playing monopoly with a white haired man that got called from my grandma's house in Portland, Oregon where we were to fly to Washington, D. C. to advise President Kennedy on the Cuban Missile Crisis. We called him Mr. White.
uncles who would tell me stories about life with Hubert Humphrey and other real dems, not the wimps we have now.
A dem from the days of Harry Truman who was raised in an FDR family

My family has lost seven members to lung cancer from smoking. I can say whatever the hell I want about smoking because I have the right. This is a forum where opinions are allowed. Challenge the content of them. Casting condescending remarks about me is cheap. Being allowed to have an opinion without getting slammed is freedom and tolerance too which I didn't get from you in your reply.

Smokers are addicts. Addictions are slavery. I have the right to say what I feel about it without being slagged. You have the right to disagree without being condescending or snotty. That is all the two of us are allowed.

61. Some people just live to hate

and villify things. I lost both of my parents to smoking. So many in my family smoke, and most who do can barely afford it. When you are spending $200-300 a month on cigarettes and can't afford to buy food 15 days into the cycle....

I see big tobacco as the oldest and most established big business in this country.

66. My roommate smokes

I have to keep the door to my room closed so I don't have to smell the stench of her orange pall malls. I've asked her not to smoke in the house and she looks at me like I'm an asshole. Ordinarily, I'm a pro-freedom kind of person. But when I'm dumping her cigarette butts, and I'm fighting a wave of nausea from the smell, I seriously want to have them banned.

82. It's my house,

So she would move. And she only makes minimum wage plus commission (selling wigs to cancer patients), so I'm helping her out. I'd hate to just kick her out or give her an ultimatum. She'd be totally screwed. So I'll deal with it. It just makes me go from passive non-smoker to absolutely hating smoking and smokers. I stay in my room all the time when she's at home.

15. The War on Drugs has been so successful that expanding it is the most logical course of action.

34. The upside of the law is preventing new nicotine addictions -- or at least making it more

difficult for people to get a hold of their first cigarettes. Plus it will require smokers to see doctors fairly regularly. Since they face health risks the rest of us don't face, that could improve the quality of their lives, even lengthen their lives, and maybe save very expensive healthcare costs for serious diseases.

Also, Oregon would develop an anonymous and large database of smokers that could be studied without invading the privacy of people. That way we could really determine what the effects of smoking are on health. That has been a topic of controversy for a long, long time.

This law could further scientific study.

No one is suggesting outlawing smoking. They just want cigarette purchases to be by a doctor's prescription. Why not?

53. The data base wouldn't be an avantage.

We won't gain any useful information from it. There is not a lot controversy over whether or not smoking is unhealthy.

The law will be great advantage to prison owners. I imagine most doctors won't prescribe a recreational drug to their patients, so smokers will be buying them from neighboring states, and many of them will get caught. Are we really better off with more prisoners? This law would basically make smokes illegal. If you disagree, just spend a few seconds actually thinking about it.

The gangs in inner Oregon will have an instant, highly dedicated clientele for their drug dealing. I've lived in Oregon, the gunshots are lame enough now.

Bumming a smoke to a buddy will be a punishable offence. That is pretty ridiculous. The cops could hang out in front of bars and otherwise "good" college students will be arrested and get a record for selling someone a smoke for a quarter.

The War on Drugs has been a complete failure for everyone except prison owners. It doesn't have the desired effect, it just helps us to be #1 in most people locked behind bars.

21. Congratulations on having quit!

I care about the health benefits. I was very glad when my father quit when I was 15; I'm glad you've quit now, and I wish you the best of luck in remaining quit and the best of health now and in your future. Good for you!!

I don't like the odor, but my personal, immediate problem with cigarette smoke is that it triggers migraines for me. (I didn't know that until some time after my father quit. It does explain why I had fairly frequent migraines as a kid.) I leave the vicinity of smokers and hold my breath when I have to walk near them outside, not to try to insult them or their addiction but to save myself a round of misery and vomiting. I try not to be too obvious about it, but I've gotten some glares.

35. This does not ban smoking. It merely insures that smokers are checked by their

doctors. It also makes it more difficult for kids to get cigarettes.

Further, it would enable a huge scientific study of Oregon's smokers to get solid data on the health effects of smoking.

I doubt that it will pass, but I think it is a great idea.

I don't know how it is now, but when the birth control pill came out, you had to get a prescription for it. That allowed for the medical profession to get really good data on the effects of birth control pills. So many people were afraid of them.

Right now, smokers self-report their smoking history -- how much they smoke, etc.

This prescription idea would serve some good purposes. It doesn't outlaw smoking. It outlaws smoking if you don't visit a doctor and get a prescription. Hopefully, when you are getting your prescription, you will also get a bit of a check-up -- say of your lungs, your weight, your blood pressure. This bill could help lots of smokers live longer. There is no guarantee, but it isn't such a bad idea.

86. Which would be great.

58. Unbelievable

I won't say what I really think about your post because my post would then end up being removed. All I can say is that my jaw dropped when I read how you so casually decided for your fellow citizens that it would be ok to force them to go to a doctor and participate in a scientific study against their will under the pretense that you care so much about them and their health. My skin is crawling just thinking about how anyone could think that this is ok much less desirable. Ugh. Unbelievable.

29. Yeah really bad idea

I hate cigarette smoke, I hate seeing cigarette butts on the sidewalk, some people have asthma and that's a problem. But, making cigarettes illegal is not the answer by a long shot. We definitely should encourage things like insurance companies picking up some cost for treating cigarette addiction. We should have more smoke outs. And we should emphasize prevention. Smoking just isn't cool. But, if it's made legal, suddenly it is going to be the cool thing to do, lots of people are intrigued by forbidden fruit.

59. this wouldn't help if it did pass

Even if they where to pass this do they really think it would work. Its more of the same drug war shit. It will increase the jail population. It will increase juvinials doing harder drugs. Why do you think mj is a gateway drug. I have to go to a dealer to get it who offeres me more things. If I could go to the store and buy it I wouldn't be offered other things and would be much less likely to take them. This is a stupid idea. You may hate cigs but making it a crime is not the solution. Banning ppl who can't get to the doctor all the time is not going to solve the problem. This will cause more problems than it will fix. I will gladly run cigs to them though.

60. Another bill to penalize the poor...

First off, I don't smoke, never have. My father smoked cheap, nasty cigarettes all throughout my childhood and I had no desire to take up the habit myself. I hate the smell, I hate the pollution from cartons, butts, and lighters. I hate the way that the smell seeps into everything it comes into contact with. That said, I think this bill is a terrible idea.

I was really pissed off when they did the same thing to pseudoephedrine; it cost about $5.00 for a box of 100 pills over the counter. Suddenly, to get a $5.00 box of pills, I have to take time off work or lose a chunk of my day off, schedule an appointment with a doctor (that'll be about $80.00 just to walk into the office), and then add the cost of the prescription; my $5.00 box of pills is now in excess of $100.00. I make do with phenylephrine, which is the OTC replacement for pseudoephedrine, but it really doesn't work as well.

Many of the smokers I know either have little or no health insurance, they don't have a doctor to go to. I see a lot of homeless smokers, where would they get a prescription for cigarettes?

Why not make every legally available addictive or potentially addictive/harmful substance prescription only?

Alcohol?

Sugar?

Carbohydrate laden foods?

Deep fried foods?

Butter?

Bacon?

What doctor would give a prescription for any of those (proven to be bad for your health) substances? Where would it end?

I would love it if everyone could easily quit smoking or switch to e-cigs, but most "tabacco" (I use that term loosely as so many things have been added to it as to make it virtually unrecognizable to it's original plant component) is deliberately so addictive that people can't just quit.

How about if Corporate Tobacco had to pay for every prescription? How about if buying a pack of cigarettes gave the purchaser access to "smokers insurance" where every smoking related office or hospital visit was covered by said insurance?

I live in Portland and I think I can say with certainty that if this bill passed there would be riots in the streets. Or at least an unbearable amount of whining from the hipsters. For a city that's full of bicyclists and touts itself for being green, I can't walk down the street without passing someone puffing away on a cigarette (sometimes while they are riding a bicycle).

103. It is all a big joke...

they want all of us to chose a healthier lifestyle but do nothing to help protect people from all the junk they continue to put into our food. So I agree. Still pleanty of people die each year from cancer related deaths that never smoked.

78. Then you know: leave the gun, take the cannoli

63. Fuck that and fuck the prescription-only pseueohedrine. The other stuff isn't nearly as effective.

Prescription only cigarettes? Yeah, good luck with that buddy. Talk about wasting time. If he were really concerned about smoking and its health effects, he's be advocating more effective public health measures like early education, expanded coverage, preventive care, smoking-cessation programs, whatever.

64. This would stop a lot of people from starting up smoking

and make it hard for kids to get hooked. I support the idea of letting those already addicted get their fix, but stop the next generation from doing so. Granted there would be some accessing cigarettes on the black market, but far fewer would probably be smokers in the future.

It also might provide one more incentive for some to kick the habit.

There is no safe level of smoking, unlike drinking. Smokers run up everyone's tax bills treating the diseases that smoking causes. I become very ill when I am around cigarette smoke - wheezing -- and also just hate the stench. Secondhand smoke kills.

We should do everything possible to stop others from smarting this deadly and nasty habit in my view.

That said, the prescriptions should be easy to get for those already hooked who find these disgusting things enjoyable, but use the law to restrict future generations from getting hooked. There also should be provisions for low-income folks, smoking should not be a privilege for the rich only....hmmm....on second thought maybe the 1% would die off faster that way.

95. Indeed. Protect our youth and future health care costs too.

65. The attempt to

make cigarettes/nicotine available by prescription only.......if it succeeds, will only serve to put money in the pockets of the big pharma companies. I say this because no doctor would write a prescription for cigarettes for ones nicotine addiction.......can you say prescription only transdermal patches?

71. Shameful

WASHINGTON — Millions of smokers could be priced out of health insurance because of tobacco penalties in President Barack Obama's health care law, according to experts who are just now teasing out the potential impact of a little-noted provision in the massive legislation.

For a 55-year-old smoker, the penalty could reach nearly $4,250 a year. A 60-year-old could wind up paying nearly $5,100 on top of premiums.

For smokers, this bill is not the Affordable Health Care Act it's a death sentence. A lot of them (unless they're rich) won't be able to have health insurance so any illness they get whether it's related to smoking or not will not be treated. So I for one don't want to hear any more smug comments that pretend to care about smokers. Sadly, far too many non-smokers have decided that these people just don't count. And what's really scary is that smokers are just the first group to be singled out. It won't stop with smokers. This is so shameful. To think in America we would pass legislation that targets our fellow citizens to be singled out to not have health insurance just because they choose to live their lives differently from others. It's just really creepy.

92. I like the idea. nt

96. Bottom line for me: I would never vote for this Nanny Stater.

If I lived in this man's district, I'd vote for any challenger to him in the primary, and if that failed, I'd vote for any Republican who ran against him in the general - even if Democratic control of the chamber rested on this seat.

98. Two things

One I'm from Oregon and even as a non-smoker this will never pass as a ballot initiative. In fact I'd wager it wouldn't even get 40%. So all the people bellyaching be quite.

Second, as someone else said enforcing the existing laws especially someone smoking in areas they should be would be a much better idea. Go after those who litter too. I have no problem with people smoking, just don't push your habit in other's faces.

Here in Korea they just passed legislation that is close to what they have in Oregon, yet it is poorly enforced.

100. Edgar Friendly

"I'm the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, 'Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?' I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing 'I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener'. "

105. demolition man

101. This guy not only is an Idiot

he has little regard for Rights-And he has little to zero understanding of the WoD's.
If this passes he will have successfully created a New market For Black Market Dealers-thus Supporting and Encouraging crime.

Harm Reduction Education has been working well over the past several decades as fewer and fewer people take up the habit or even kids who choose to Never even try it once.
It taught and still teaches the Truth of the consequences of using Nicotine. Parents are never around when their kids are pressured by their peers to try anything, the antidote is to tell them the truth and empower Them to make responsible, safe and highly informed decisions. It's working, tobacco use is rapidly falling...so WHY do we need the govt to Nanny-Sit us into compliance? Money. Follow the money. Is this, perhaps a replacement for a very profitable yet waning Cannabis Prohibition? Theres some big-bucks there.
This bill, if it becomes law will dilute the Success of the Anti-Smoking Campaign--Anytime you prohibit something it is human to want it---where-as now-it's in the open and those who don't use it now--likely never will, because we know the truth.
Its a Bullshit drain on the States budget to pay for enforcement, sentencing is up to 1 year @ $3000.00 per month per person. In Oregon it costs $10k to educate and $30,000k to incarcerate, per person per year. We Now unwisely invest/spend More on Laws, Jails than we do to educate our kids! Which would you rather have-an informed public making healthier decisions as a matter of personal responsibility or a prison full of non-violent prisoners draining our wallets for Nothing?

102. Cigarette smoking has declined dramatically..

My take on this is that the drop is primarily due to education, not regulation. I would predict that cigarettes would still be freely available after passage of this bill, including to minors. Just would cost more, and the dealers would profit.